I think it is safe to assume that most users on these forums regard movies as art. I'm sure most would agree that some movies are extremely important because of the messages they communicate and the mirror they hold to society and our human condition. One of the problems, however, is that alot of the movies discussed on this forum are destined to be seen by only a select few. Moreover, directors who make their "art" more palatable are seen as somehow compromising the art form. The question this inevitably raises is what good is art that goes (relatively) unseen or art that is misunderstood.

Perhaps an interesting case in point...

Some of you may know that Stanley Kubrick intended to make a Holocaust movie called "Aryan Papers." This project was shelved when Spielberg started work on "Schindler's List." I, personally, lament the fact that Kubrick's movie was never made; I think it would have been a better, more powerful, less humanistic, more profound account of the Holocaust than Spielberg's admittedly still great movie. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that Kubrick's movie would not have had the same impact as Spielberg's movie has had. Not only did Spielberg's movie receive critical and popular acclaim as well as box office and awards success but Spielberg was able to turn these profits and direct the attention of viewers towards the event in many other ways, including a series of documentaries, the Shoah Film Project, and several other significant public service endeavors. I doubt very much that Kubrick's movie, though almost certainly better craft, would have had the capacity to make such an impact.

So, to cut to the point, what are your thoughts on the interrelationship of art and audience, critical and popular success, and so on?